/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2518463]

>see this on facebook
>why.jpg

[xXXSuper~SlaffykinsXXx No.2518466]

>>2518463
>why
because it's a popular book and many people are enjoying.
Jesus, what are you, retarded?

[Anonymous No.2518468]

>bawww stop enjoying things and let the literature for people like Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky so I can circlejerk to them with my hipster friends

[Mad Scientist Hououin Kyouma !!RBaVX6t0twu No.2518472]

>2012.
>Using facebook.

[Anonymous No.2518476]

i'd have sex with either of them

[Anonymous No.2518478]

Why do you have people on facebook who look broken?
Btw, why can't they like that?

[Anonymous No.2518479]

>tries to act culturally elite but lurks Facebook and gets mad over teenage girls

Diagnosis just in - you have a bad case of the autism.

[Anonymous No.2518481]

>>2518479

[Anonymous No.2518482]

prety sure OP's just fucking with us, guys

[Anonymous No.2518483]

http://www.facebook.com/people/Chelsie-Teasley/100000148332093
>books:
> scary movies
> Everyone poops

[Anonymous No.2518484]

>>2518482
Shut up OP

[Anonymous No.2518500]

>See people shitting their pants about teenagers reading young adult novels
>why.bmp

[Anonymous No.2518507]

>>2518468
>Nietzsche
>Hipster

Seriously? Must be the most mainstream philosopher ever.

[Anonymous No.2518516]

Every time you save a picture from facebook that person is notified by e-mail

[Anonymous No.2518524]

>>2518516
I just tested this and i'ts total bullshit. Keep doin what you're doing , OP 8-)

[Anonymous No.2518539]

>what is your favourite film?
>The Titanic, The Hangover and now Hunger Games :)

[xXXSuper~SlaffykinsXXx No.2518559]

>>2518539
The Titanic is now in 3D, I'm so hyped.

[Anonymous No.2518566]

Teens reading fiction for teens? I respond with an emphatic shrug of the shoulders and an exhale that sounds like "meh". Why do people get so upset that people aren't consuming works of "high art"?

[Anonymous No.2518572]

Why is OP friends with children?

[Anonymous No.2518574]

>>2518566
Exactly. It's not as if The Hunger Games didn't exist teens would be reading Joyce and Wilde.

[xXXSuper~SlaffykinsXXx No.2518582]

>>2518572
He's still in highschool?

[Anonymous No.2518588]

>>2518582
Then he's underage (and in all likeliness not very well read himself)

[Anonymous No.2518590]

>>2518566

i don't care what you read. just don't go around toting it as the greatest work of literature ever.

[xXXSuper~SlaffykinsXXx No.2518594]

>>2518588
And you finally realise what 90% of this board is.
It's a sad truth we must face.

underaged kids thinking they are smart because they read books that are known as 'high brow'.

They can't think for themselves, ergo bash mediocrity like Hunger games instead of criticising books people see as great. Such as Joyce's Ulysses, a very bland, badly written novel that somehow seems to get mad praise.

[Anonymous No.2518607]

>>2518594

>instead of criticising books people see as great.

But then we'd just get a bunch of contrarian hipsters that are contrarian just for the sake of it.

[yRаn !mHBuhWvEhs No.2518615]

>facebook

[Anonymous No.2518622]

>>2518590
because yours is the only valid opinion, i'm sure

[Anonymous No.2518644]

>>2518463
>why

You add 14 year-old girls as friends on Facebook, that happens. You're the only one to blame for this.

[Anonymous No.2518648]

My favourite part about people in their 20s and older is that they tend to forget how idiotic they were at 14. They're always banging on about how the kids these days are listening to shit music and watching shit movies, but they forget that when they were 14, they thought Fight Club was deep and edgy and cool.
fight club isn't cool

also if those spoiler tags didn't work, it doesn't mean what i said isn't true

[Anonymous No.2518650]

>>2518594
for a book you seem to hate so much for whatever reason, you really like talking about ulysses, don't you

[Anonymous No.2518714]

>>2518463
oh! she's reading a teenage book! And she puts a pic on facebook!

My little sister started reading twilight and now she read borges. Fuck of, man

[Anonymous No.2518718]

>>2518648
While it is true that people have always bashed on the younger generation, there has been an objective cultural decline over the past few decades. I say "objective" because the mode of production has clearly changed, particularly in the case of music. Even if you think that today's pop artists produce quality work (or at least content that's no worse than the older stuff), it's irrefutable that the "creative" process behind popular media has deteriorated into a form of soulless mass production that favors quantity over quality. Bands like The Beatles, whom are greatly over-hyped among today's dadrock worshiping youth, may not have been as genius as their fans would like you to believe, but if you actually think that Abbey Road is on the same tier as, say, LMFAO's new album, you are just being contrarian for the hell of it.

And I might add that people like you are the ones who are actually trying to be deep and edgy. Fight Club wasn't a masterpiece but it was entertaining, and I'm not ashamed one bit for liking it. Same goes for the Hunger Games. And even if they are just hopping on the hype bandwagon, I'd rather see kids reading an (admittedly second-rate) novel than not reading at all. Who knows, maybe the girl in the picture will gain an interest in dystopian fiction, move on to other entry-level stuff like The Giver and 1984, and eventually work her way to the 2deep4u literature that you so enjoy.

Hey, it's possible.

[Anonymous No.2518748]

>I'm better than everyone because I read obscure literature
>Try and think of deep meanings for poetry when in reality they had none to begin with
>just the hyped up words of someone who was too famous, and could do no wrong
>Share the same exact opinion with everyone on /lit/
>I'm an individual
>How dare these whores pick up a book, read bout it, and try to share their feelings with their real life friends
>Even if they are pretty and reading that book might get be laid with the one on the right that doesn't have a strange face

[Anonymous No.2518754]

>>2518718
>While it is true that people have always bashed on the younger generation, there has been an objective cultural decline over the past few decades

lol

>. I say "objective" because the mode of production has clearly changed, particularly in the case of music. Even if you think that today's pop artists produce quality work (or at least content that's no worse than the older stuff), it's irrefutable that the "creative" process behind popular media has deteriorated into a form of soulless mass production that favors quantity over quality.

lol

>Bands like The Beatles, whom are greatly over-hyped among today's dadrock worshiping youth, may not have been as genius as their fans would like you to believe, but if you actually think that Abbey Road is on the same tier as, say, LMFAO's new album, you are just being contrarian for the hell of it.

lol (bonus points here for contradicting yourself + insulting your own dumb dadrock worshipping self while somehow not realizing how dumb you are)

this is incredible stuff

[Anonymous No.2518763]

>>2518718
If you think that the 60s were filled with spectacular pop music that rivals LMFAO, allow me to be the first to tell you that there was, and always will be, a lot of shit in the popular discourse. That's what makes the popular discourse: shit. In the 60s, there were countless bands that were producing saccharine trite nonsense that just haven't stood the test of time, but charted back in the day. Listen to American Top 40 with Casey Kasem in the 60s and you won't recognize half of it and you surely won't like half of it.

It's not that there's more shit now, it's just that there's more of everything now. I agree with you in that the production of cultural artifacts has accelerated to an almost frantic pace, but this was being pointed at in the 80s by thinkers such as Jameson. But we look back at the 80s and see tons of worthy artists and influential bands.

It's not irrefutable that the production of pop music has turned to an industrial model of quantity over quality. What is irrefutable is that general pop music has ALWAYS been an industrial model of commodity production.

I'm not being contrarian for the sake of it. I find nostalgia irritating and dangerous. Pop music has always sucked, or has always been good. There's no measurement of quality over the years. One can't point to a decade and say, "the pop music of that era was shit". That's ludicrous.

[Anonymous No.2518768]

>>2518748
you're an idiot, like, seriously, your opinion is dumb as hell. and i agree with you that /lit/'s weird hatred of hunger games and the outrage among people on /lit/ that people are reading it (mostly females, mostly young, mostly not enthusiastic readers) is dumb as hell. but everything else you're saying is stupid.

especially that you're advocating reading hunger games because "it might get you laid", come on dude, that's some bullshit, don't advocate that kind of pose. jesus, that's dumb as hell, read it because it's worth reading. the problem with your post is that its implicitly saying that the reason people are reading is not because they enjoy reading but for some other ulterior motive - if they read poetry, it's because they think it makes them cool, elite, knowledgeable, intellectual; what they should do is read hunger games for the purposes of sex. that's fucking dumb as hell, and anti-intellectual in the extreme. not to mention that those girls are real young and that's pretty creepy.

come on dude

[Anonymous No.2518788]

>>2518768
>>2518763
>>2518754
Is this all the same fuckin person?

[Anonymous No.2518790]

>>2518788
two of those were me but not the third

[Anonymous No.2518792]

>>2518788
>>2518790

nope.jpg

[Anonymous No.2518806]

>>2518748
You all missed the points of his post
>george clooney holding sideways briefcase.jpg

[Anonymous No.2518808]

>picture of me with a book
>lol im such a nerd xD

[Anonymous No.2518814]

>>2518648
fuck you man, chuck palinuk is good book and brad pitt and ed norton are cool guy

[Anonymous No.2518817]

>>2518763
>lmfao
>good

[Anonymous No.2518826]

>>2518817
>implying that the post implied lmfao was good

[Anonymous No.2519456]

>>2518594
>criticising books people see as great. Such as Joyce's Ulysses, a very bland, badly written novel that somehow seems to get mad praise.
7/10, i really thought you were serious until i read this and then i kind of raged and then smiled

[Anonymous No.2519530]